Concept of arbitration has been prevalent, historically, in the Middle East since the early days of Islam. The arbitral process has been problematic in the UAE however, it has not been until recently that the UAE has recognized the importance of arbitration as a powerful dispute resolution alternative and revised its legislation to accommodate the proceedings of domestic and international arbitration. In the past, foreign investors have been reluctant to select the UAE seat for their arbitration proceedings. There has been a perception that, as a general rule, the practice of international commercial arbitration in the Middle East is still in its infancy. The UAE is now demonstrating to the international community that it has the necessary infrastructure and laws in place to successfully count itself as one of the key arbitration players, alongside London, Paris and Hong Kong. This has been the result of the UAE updating their laws, reforming dispute resolution practice and procedures and through the establishment of key regional arbitration centres. The UAE's accession to the New York Convention was also seen as a significant step in demonstrating the UAE's commitment to foreign investors and the international community. Under Federal Decree No. 43 of 2006, the UAE managed to accede to the New York Convention. The UAE's accession is considered as a mile stone towards provision for a more straightforward arbitral process and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in other Convention states. As a recent development, the UAE has evidenced the joint venture between the Dubai International Financial Centre ('the DIFC') and the London Court of International Arbitration ('the LCIA'), in February 2009, to create the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Centre ('the DIFC~LCIA'). The DIFC-LCIA operates alongside the longer-established Dubai International Arbitration Centre ('the DlAC'). Both offer their own procedural rules and regulations for the amicable settlement of disputes through arbitration. The Courts role is vital in an arbitral proceeding in any jurisdiction. Although arbitration is believed as a court-free, independent forum for dispute resolution; the court plays fundamental role to ensure that the arbitral proceeding is taking place in a moderate and independent decorum. The UAE Court's role towards the International commercial arbitration has been very problematic and the courts historically used to intervene in the arbitral proceeding over tiny issues. The new UAE arbitration laws has changed the situation and curtailed the courts powers to interfere the arbitral proceeding. At present, the arbitration in the UAE is more independent and straightforward. The proposed UAE arbitration law has much more similarities with the Model Law UNCITRAL and meets the International standards. A lot of work still has to be done in order to make the arbitration more independent, straightforward and friendly in the UAB. The Court's role is vital and is required to be more supportive then it is at present in the arbitral process.

Cette thèse est une étude comparative entre la loi française et la loi égyptienne ; elle porte sur le cadre juridique du cyber arbitrage dans le commerce international, ces termes signifiant la dématérialisation des procédures de l’arbitrage lequel représente un moyen alternatif pour régler les litiges commerciaux. La question est de savoir dans quelle mesure les règles de l'arbitrage traditionnel sont aptes à régir l'arbitrage dématérialisé et s’il faut créer pour ce dernier des règles juridiques spécifiques. La réponse à cette problématique s’articule autour de la possibilité pour toutes les règles de la législation d’adopter les nouvelles technologies. Notons que l’arbitrage dématérialisé est soumis à la même règle traditionnelle régie par la théorie générale des contrats, selon le principe de la volonté des parties, mais cet arbitrage se déroule hors la présence de ces dernières car par le biais de moyens électroniques. La procédure arbitrale aura lieu à distance, cependant, si au plan technique l'arbitrage en ligne se pratique aisément, il n’en va pas de même au plan juridique. En d’autres termes, l'arbitrage classique comprend pléthore de conditions impératives tant sur le fonds que sur la forme, conditions que l'arbitrage en ligne, en vertu de sa nature, ne réussit pas à satisfaire en totalité. Les deux lois comparées sont globalement convergentes et concordent avec les principes internationaux. Après une longue période de franche hostilité on note, dans les années quatre-vingts de la part des pays arabes, des changements dans leur attitude à l’égard de l’arbitrage commercial international. Toutefois, la loi française dépasse la loi égyptienne en matière électronique. / This thesis is a comparative study between French law and Egyptian law; it concerns The legal framework for cyber arbitration in international trade, these terms mean paperless arbitration procedures which represents an alternative way to resolve trade disputes. The question is to what extent the rules of traditional arbitration are able to govern dematerialized arbitration and whether to create it for specific legal rules. The answer to this problem is based on the ability of all the rules of law to adopt new technologies. Note that the dematerialized arbitration is subject to the same traditional rule governed by the general theory of contract, on the basis of the will of the parties, but the arbitration shall be conducted without the presence of the latter because through electronic means. The arbitration proceedings will be held remotely, however, if technically online arbitration easily practice it does not hold true in legal terms. In other words, the classic arbitration includes plethora of mandatory conditions on both the funds and the form, terms as online arbitration, pursuant to its nature, does not satisfy in full. Both laws are compared globally convergent and consistent with international principles. After a long period of open hostility there are, in the eighty years from Arab countries, changes in their attitude to international commercial arbitration. However, French law exceeds the Egyptian law on electronic material.